Member Comments

RANDOM21

Now it seems the legislature wants to be able to shield carry permits from being released via FOIA exemption. This would prevent the possibility of names and addresses from being published by over zealous newspapers. Don't think for a moment that some editors wouldn't do it because it already has been done with an interactive map that showed the way to the permit holders doors. Seems to be an inappropriate action that puts innocent gun owners at risk of burglary or worse.

RANDOM21

The committee has done its job. They found that no other county has regulations, they don't know and seemingly can't count existing gun ranges in the county, they haven't mentioned the range close to air port which law enforcement now uses. and can't find major fault with those ranges they can locate. Stay tuned for the next exciting chapter of "Home behind the Range" or "Little House on the Firing Range".

RANDOM21

Now we can't post to the polls. Today's was whether the right people were appointed to the committee to study gun ranges. The make up was rather inclusive of all, but also included people directly involved in the Sundowner squabble. Seems to be an intentional conflict of interest if only information was the goal.

teflon

pretty simple in some cases. who was here first? if gun range; then house/ property owners are out of luck. like complaining about plane noise by airport when it was there for years before you. if gun range is the new guy; new requirements on back stops even if has to 50 over top of target area. anyone firing hiring than that is not target/ zeroing in. is malicious and needs go to jail.

RANDOM21

And the bickering starts. Man, who wanted on committee, starts complaining about those that are. Our trend setter commissioners want Wood County to be first in the state to develop rules for gun ranges. Unexpected circumstances, bickering, law suits, thumb twiddling. As someone else has commented elsewhere "What a can of worms has been opened!!"

RANDOM21

It's not the gun ranges that worry me the most. I'm more concerned that the new regulations might infringe on the rights of rural property owners to go out and fire off a few rounds safely at a target or a tin can. I don't want everyone to be forced to go to an "approved" gun range just to get a little target practice. More time, more money, and more rules than necessary. The rule of unexpected consequences always raises its ugly head when all things are not taken into consideration.

mythravere

In my opinion the range itself is rather poor in its construction regardless if it adheres to gun range backstop construction rules.

The problem I see is that there is a really thin margin of error present in its design.

Sure the backstop is in compliance but for it to be effective the shooter has to actually send his or her rounds into it. If the fired round goes high there is nothing but trees behind the backstop to stop the fired round.

For a practiced shooter that will not be a problem. But people of lesser skill or the guns themselves may send a round over the top of the backstop.

Plus there is always the chance that something could cause someone to go off target and send a round out the boundaries of the backstop.

mythravere

But of course when a complaint comes up it seems that the gun owners first defense is to hold up their gun ownership rights card and give no phucks about the concerns someone living close by has.

A committee wouldn't have to be formed if the range users and its owners would just go and check out the circumstances of a complaint and if the range and its users is found to be in the wrong....take the necessary steps to right that wrong.

I don't know for a fact but I am getting the feeling that in the case of the Gihon Road range. The range owners and users just don't care about the effects of their use of that range in the location.

I mean admitting that bullets have landed on residential property would set themselves up for lawsuits. So the only course is to deny any wrongdoing and play the gun rights card.

mythravere

Seems to me that the people who use these ranges (not all of them) like to forcefully assert their gun ownership rights over the people who live near the gun ranges.

If you are going to have a gun range anywhere near residential areas you are bound to have complaints whether it be noise complaints or complaints that residential owners property is being damaged by stray bullets.

In the instance that people live near a range what about their rights to be able to live on their property without being disturbed by the crack of guns going off?